Corvin said:
I actually rather liked the Alien vs Predator comics. What was done with them was the questionable bit (I think AVP could've been enjoyable as a Hard R rated movie).
Some Predator fans would say I was a terrible person for enjoying Batman vs Predator.
I had fun with it... I didn't expect it to be something different than what it was.
Not everything that is enjoyable though makes it "good" in the first place. I heard people get joy out by playing on the highway. Well anyway.
AvP lacked on a lot of reasons already from the begining. Just as Fallout3. Its all done cause its "cool". Not what makes sense in either the setting or inside the Alien AND Predator world.
Paul Anderson described it once that way "We have violance. We have scientist with guns" (could be Fallout 3 right away ...) yes ... and thats all what made the movies. It works in the comics. I like them I own a few of them. But do you konw why it works there, cause it are comics a totally different own medium and frankly most of the comics contain more interesting characters the AvP movies ever have seen. Sanaa Lathan as homage for Ripley? My ass ...
Cant say what made the Predator series so interesting, but I think it was eventualy cause it was a very well made action movie. And I think a lot of the appeal came from the lone fighting in the jungle, thats just awesome. But the Alien frachise, regardles of the unique and well done monster needs good actors. The movies are focused around the actors, their stories, and the interaction. You can simply see that by the comments of the directors. Anderson took only the things he "thought" were cool throwing awesome done creatures in mediocre settings (as like this kind of action has never been done/seen before ...). They really made money with the name only, think about it without aliens or predators the movie would have been gone.
Same with Fallout 3. Bethesda took what they think is cool (the setting) and left anything else they thought is "not cool" (TB, ISO, RPG elements) out. Its schockingly, that when it comes to "immersion" everything gets a meaning. TB? ISO? Dialogues (good ones ...) ... not immersive, needs to get out. First person? Awesome violance! Immersive (even when its not).
As one can see Bethesda is really spining everything around in a way that it fits THEIR liking and their way how to make games. Everything THEY do is of course modern and immersive and inovative. And everything they left out was not modern ...
Corvin said:
There's an analogy there.
I also find being told that some people's opinions are based on facts and mine aren't rather silly. Am I basing my moderate enjoyment of Fallout 3 on lies? Damn I'm evil.
Youre not basing your "enjoyment" on a lie. One has not to lie when he is incorrect. You just base your argument on false assumptions.
Look its really like with Jesus (you might lough now, but listen). A lot of the people see the cross with Jesus, but forget the simple fact that the way he is shown is "incorrect". Historycaly he could not have been crucified with the nails in his hand since they could not hold the weight of a human in such a position [it was even tested with corpses] and it was also not reported to be done that way by roman acadmeics of that time. More correct would it be to show him with the nails in the wrists. Makes this now all who believe in Jesus was crucify wrong? No of course not. The people in the past who designed the cross just have not know about this and based their assumptions on "incorect facts".
[I know its a bit far streched, but its to make a pont.]
Now it is that a lot of people base oppinions about Fallout on "false hypotheses" with saying the mechanics around Fallout were never part of its "core" (same as Bethesda). They really believe in what they say, so they are not lieing. They are just "incorrect". I see people as well argue many times that "what they belief" is popular and thus has to be right. Many like Fallout 3, so Bethesda has nailed the Fallout core. Well frankly. Only cause many believe in a oppinino it doesnt make it right away true. Particularly when its hard to say for what people like Fallout 3 really. I am sure many players out theire would have liked Bethesdas game even if it would have been s post apocalyptic Tamriel (TES) with magicaly exploding horses [instead of magicaly nuclear exploding cars] without any reference to Fallout at all. They like the TES mechanics. Not the Fallout core concept. Leaving alone its PnP roots.
Now a lot of people come here and argue "but this is Oppinion! You cant say youre right" even if one is representing them the details, dev quotes, back ground etc.
Well to say that. One can only SHOW the details. We can not UNDERSTAND it for you. In a nutshell it is really that way that many of the Fallout 3 [Bethesda fans] stand on the earth, see the sky, the moon and sun move around them and say now, everyone who thinks different must be really crazy, he just as to "look" in to the sky to see the point! They neglect completely the fact that its not just what you can see the first time about Fallout that is important, but when you get deeper in to the details it all comes down to "but just look in to the sky!".
Cause Bethesda got what Fallout craves ... its got First Person
